Let's Calm Down a Little
 

Rich I is not a rat here, and while he is tending to be a little OOO on this subject he has a point.

We do have too many umpires who are not enforcing rules, they are taking the easy way out, and teams will let them get away with it.

IMO, if he hits the black he scores, and in a perfect world the black shouldn't exist to be seen on a field. Rich believes that the runner did not score because he did not touch the plate, and strictly by rule we can all see he has a case, however tenuous you believe it to be.

If he is wanting to go to the mat with a team on an appeal of home because he makes that call, I can live with that. If he has to wack the manager and the player and one or two other guys for it, great. At least he has the guts to make and stick with the call he believes he should make in that situation. As a partner in the locker room I would tell him I disagree with his judgment, but on the field, I'd back him 100%.

Having said all that, I appeal to Rich I here, reconsider. If the black part of the plate is exposed, how can it not be part of the plate on that field? Your arguments about the base are weak IMO, since on any field (except for one I saw this summer where they were half buried), every field has a base that sits totally on top of the dirt of the infield. They don't move, they are anchored from underneath in an exposed position. There is no extra set of edges exposed. Home plates are a different matter entirely.

Just because somebody told you that doesn't mean that it is an official interpretation issued by any sanctioning body.

So, what I think you're saying is, if you need slow motion replay on a 72" HD screen to see he missed it, then he really didn't miss it.

+1

If it's there to be stepped on, I don't care what color it is. Sheesh.

Several points:

1) The catcher saw the miss. That's why he appealed. He knows the runner didn't touch the plate.

2) The base coaches (runner's own team) saw the miss. That's why they didn't go nuts. They know their runner didn't touch the plate.

3) The black isn't part of the plate because the rule defining the plate says it's only the white part.

Now we have a bunch of folks saying "close enough". Really? "Close enough"? Right coach, the throw was almost in time and your runner only barely beat it so it was close enough and your runner is out.

For the play at hand:

So if you call "safe" the defense manager is in your face.

And if you call "out" the offense manager is in your face.

So your only choice is "which manager do I want in my face".

Who screwed up - the catcher or the runner?

Why on earth do you want to reward the runner for a screwup and punish the catcher for wanting a legitimate out?

Call it right.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

The problem is this: If he touches the black, there's no way to tell if a small portion of his foot also touched the white. There's gotta be visible dirt between the foot and the plate before I call this cause then I *know* he missed the plate.

And I've called this in the past. I ejected the batter and his manager afterwards, too. But I'm not making the call based on "I think he missed it."

I get that you don't get that, but all the umpires here get it.

Case in point was Domonic Brown "missing" second last night in the Phillies/Marlins game. A terrible call by Kerwin Danley -- replays show that Brown actually touched second base, but not on the front corner of the base, like a runner normally would. Danley upheld an appeal and replays showed he looked at the "touch" from behind and guessed at a missed base. We shouldn't be guessing if someone missed -- we need to know (100%) someone missed or they touched.

that is the word of the rat know go in peace

I thought Brown said that he missed the base after the game. The replay showed the umpire looking directly at the base as Brown rounded it. It was far from a terrible call and there wasn't much of an argument from the Phillies. I thought the replay showed Brown missed the bag, but he might have just clipped it with his heel.

Brown said he wasn't sure. The Phillies replay showed the heel hitting the base. If it's that inconclusive, it's a terrible call. That's the point I've been trying to make in this thread.

The following is from a Philly report on the game:

Brown says gaffe cost Phillies in extra-inning loss

“I did not,” Brown said when asked if he touched the base. “I just got to go back and take the double. I don’t know what I was thinking about there – too aggressive, I guess. Right there it cost us the game. You live and learn. That’s all I can say.”

Again, it was far from a terrible call. It turns out the runner confirmed it was the right call. The umpire looked to be in perfect position to call it. Charley Manual handled his brief discussion with dignity as did the ump (?Charley Relliford?) and the game went on without all the show and bluster we usually get. Imagine that!

Sorry, the tip of the cap goes to Kerwin Danley who was U2.

Hey, I always call you a rat. You're just now getting offended? Perhaps you missed the winking smiley I put in there.

What makes you think a player that touched a visible portion of home plate is subject to being put out on appeal? Not in the real world. Not a legitimate appeal.

Whenever a player actually does not touch a base, and the defense appeals, I always, 100% of the time, call the runner out on appeal. Any coach who argues vociferously that a players foot only touched the black part of the exposed plate is a total douche, and being a rat would be the least of their worldly troubles.

"I was trying to go so fast, all I was thinking was getting to third," Brown said. "I might have touched it with my heel, but I couldn't tell. I think I missed it, though. It cost us the game."

He *did* touch it with his heel. It was a brutal call to make in that situation. You don't guess at a missed base and you certainly don't take the word of a player over a replay that clearly shows the heel hitting the back side of the base, regardless of what the homer announcers say. There is no "right" way to touch a base, either.

MLB.com Gameday | MLB.com: Gameday

The replay isn't here, either. The good replay was from the Phillies broadcast and they showed it over and over and over again. And because Danley was on the back side of the base and had to look over the base, he guessed at the miss. I don't get why anyone would choose the dirty end of that stick.

I think there is a right way to leg out a triple. Doesn't it make sense to touch second on the inside corner with your right foot? Brown messed up his running cadence by looking at the ball roll to the wall. He had the entire play directly in front of him for the 90 feet from first to second to watch it all he wanted. The right way to leg out a triple is to make a good, strong turn at second and pick up your third base coach. Since Brown didn't, he lost his proper stride where the best he could do was to catch the bag with his left heel. The rear spike on your heel catching on the bag could easily turn an ankle or cause you to trip and fall. Live and learn indeed.

Brutal call? It came in the 6th inning of a game where the Phillies blew leads of 4-0 and 5-3. It's not like it was a walk-off balk or a walk-off missed call at the plate.